Forum
  Classifieds
  News
  Localband
  Shows
  Show Pics
  Polls

  OT Threads
  Other News
  Movies
  VideoGames
  Videos
  TV
  Sports
  Gear
  /r/
  Food

  New Thread
  New Poll

E-mail

New site? Maybe some day.

Username:

SPAM Filter: re-type this

(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)

Message:

UBB enabled. HTML disabled Spam Filtering enabledIcons: (click image to insert) Show All - pop

b i u add: url image video(?)

:	post by Headbanging Man at 2010-12-06 23:15:54

I am on the fence about Assange and WL... He may be a spook, he may be legit... Of course, the latter might mean that he and the site are be innocent dupes, an unwitting channel through which the military-intelligence axis releases select information or creates and controls a limited channel of dissent. He need not be a direct agent of the CIA or Pentagon in order for his work to serve their purpose.

Though much of the activity probably moved outside of the original channels by the end of the 1970's, it's well known that the FBI, CIA, and military intelligence agencies were involved with direct suppression of political dissent, during the Cold War, and since; the use of sheep-dipped spies and provocateurs for the monitoring and entrapment of various leftist, civil rights, and populist groups (ala COINTELPRO) from the Red Scares of the early 20th century through today's ongoing repression of anti-war, anti-globalization, pro-ecology, etc. groups by the same agencies and methods, and the manufactured terrorist threats that have sustained the anti-civil liberties, anti-Muslim, pro-war climate in the country since 9/11.

Less documented, but equally troublesome, phony leftist academics, opinionators, aid-workers, activists, etc. have at times been supported (by the CIA especially) in efforts to steer and corral a portion of the left away from radical ideologies and into a more mainstream, "liberal"/"progressive" mindset that of course was strictly anti-Communist, and supportive of the American economic empire (even if ostensibly anti-war/militarism). In addition to helping to shape general opinion to match its goals, the military-intelligence axis has always sought to have direct influence within the full "legitimate" (i.e. non-radical/manageable/pro-global-capitalist) political spectrum, and this required contacts and agents within academia, the mainstream press, the (allegedly) independent press, NGOs/foundations, citizen's groups, unions, political parties, etc. in order to maintain influence over the liberal portion of the spectrum (the conservative portion being more naturally allied with the M-I axis, it did not require so much covert attention as overt alliances and propaganda). In addition to shaping and controlling the form of popular dissent against the status quo, these sponsored opinionators have also been useful for more basic spooky purposes, like the aforementioned monitoring and data collection against leftist groups and individuals, and the dissemination of disinformation.

Unfortunately, the available information on the CIA's Operation Mockingbird is a bit slim, but makes it pretty clear that the Agency was heavily invested in making sure a wide-range of publications and media outlets were working towards what it believed to be "American interests" through the 1950's and 60's. It would be silly to believe that it stopped there, regardless of what other names the program may have operated under since.

As far as Assange, I see two significant points against his credibility:
- Anti-9/11 truth comments (though this could certainly a matter of his ignorance/not having taking the trouble to examine the forensic and eyewitness evidence).
- Massive amount of mass media exposure in the US (on TV, no less!)... Most major whistle-blowers are lucky to get attention in the New York Times (Sibel Edmonds is still waiting!), much less on the heinously dumbed down infotainment-casts that pass for TV news.

This is hardly a rock solid case against Wikileaks or Assange himself, of course, but it's quite clear that the corporate mass media in the US, so inextricably linked with the aforementioned M-I axis, is using the Wikileaks "scandal" for its own propagandic/disinformational purposes, or he wouldn't be getting so much friggin air time! Likewise, I remain skeptical about Daniel Ellsberg, who may himself have been well-meaning, but whose release of the Pentagon Papers helped to whitewash the CIA's involvement in Vietnam and the international drug trade. In both cases, the selective emphasis and editing provided by the MSM is enough to create the illusion of anti-war activity without spilling anything too vital or detrimental. (Admittedly, I have not yet myself dug through the Wikileaks documents, so it's possible the juiciest bits have indeed seen the light, but I'm sure most American media consumers don't even ponder this point).

In short, regardless of actual motives, and regardless of what Wikileaks makes available to curious readers, the Wikileaks controversy must be viewed as a textbook example of a limited hangout, and taken with a grain of salt.

[default homepage]

[print][

4:05:50pm May 15,2024
load time 0.00918 secs/10 queries]

[search]

[refresh page]